alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
No. 61778.

#### Hou-Tex Peanut Company, Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 276069-K (Laredo).

Opinion by

Donlon, J.

Following *The Best Foods, Inc.*v. *United States*(37 Oust. Ct. 1, C. D. 1791), the motion was granted.
No. 59503.

protests 190865-K, etc. (New York).

#### Virchand Panachand & Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Ford, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of silk scarves or squares similar in all material respects to those the subject of *United States*v. *The Specialty House, Inc., Bryant & Heffernan, Inc., et al.*(42 C. C. P. A. 136, C. A. D. 585), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
Exhibit 32.1



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Annual Report of
Ingles Markets, Incorporated (the Company) on Form 10-K for the period ending September 25, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Robert P. Ingle, Chief Executive
Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and



2) The information contained in
the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|                                       
|---------------------------------------
|/S/    ROBERT P.
INGLE                 
|Robert P. Ingle Chief Executive Officer
|                                       
|November 30, 2010                      



The foregoing certification is being furnished as an exhibit of the Report pursuant to Item 601(b)(32) of Regulation S-K and
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and, accordingly, is not being filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission as part of the Report and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company under the Securities
Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (whether made before or after the date of the Report, irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in such filing).
-  Cotton and Tobacco 
-  Dairy 
-  Livestock, Poultry, and Grain 
-  Specialty Crops 
-  Local & Regional Food Marketing 
-  Organic 
-  Retail 
-  Run a Custom Report 
-  Contacts 
-  Search Market News 

**Broiler/Fryer Whole Birds**
            - Broiler/Fryer Market News Report (pdf)
            - National Broiler Market At-a-Glance (pdf)

**Chicken Weekly**
            - Weekly National Chicken Report (Fri) (pdf)

**Chicken Monthly**
            - Monthly National Chicken Report (pdf)

**Fowl - Weekly**
            - Live Poultry Slaughtered Under Federal Inspection - US/Canada
            - Weekly National Fowl (pdf)

**Retail**
            - Weekly Retail Chicken Feature Activity (pdf)  |  Old (pdf)

**Statistical**
            - Estimated US Live Poultry
            - Estimated Slaughter Of Broiler/Fryers
            - Estimated US Slaughtered Compared To Estimated Fryers
            - Live Poultry Slaughtered Under Federal Inspection
            - North Carolina Broiler/Fryers
            - Weekly Cold Storage – Selected Centers (Tue) (pdf)
            - Young Chickens Slaughtered Under Federal Inspection
1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

STATE FARM MUT. AUTOMOBILE : CIVIL ACTION 

INS. CO. and STATE FARM FIRE AND

CAS. CO., :

v. :

ARNOLD LINCOW, D.O., et al. : NO. 05-5368

O R D E R

AND NOW, this 1st day of December, 2009, upon consideration of the Motion of

Lawrence Forman, D.O. (“Dr. Forman”) for a Determination of His Claim for Exemption from

Attachment and Execution of Certain Assets (the “Motion”) (Doc. No. 924), after a hearing on

November 24, 2009, and for the reasons stated in the accompanying Memorandum of Decision, it

is hereby

ORDERED

1. The Motion is GRANTED.

2. The Eagles Tickets (as that term is defined in the accompanying

Memorandum of Decision), and the license associated therewith, are assets held by Dr. Forman

and his wife as tenants by the entireties.

3. The attachment of plaintiffs’ Writ of Execution on Philadelphia Eagles,

LLC, for the Eagles Tickets is dissolved, released, discontinued and terminated in all respects.
2

4. Philadelphia Eagles, LLC may deliver the Eagles Tickets to Dr. and Mrs.

Forman.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Thomas J. Rueter 

THOMAS J. RUETER

Chief United States Magistrate Judge
EXHIBIT 32

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of Phantom Fiber Corporation (the
"Company") on Form 10-K/A for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2007 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Kevin Kading, Vice-President and Director of the Company, certify, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

     (1)  The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
          15(d) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934; and

     (2)  The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
          material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of
          the Company.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

May 12, 2009


/s/ Kevin Kading
---------------------------
Kevin Kading
Vice-President and Director
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You have reached the FederalDepository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC) Archive. Thisarchive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC. Access topublications in the archive is available through GPO's suite of cataloging andlocator services, including the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications(CGP).  Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event thatpublications are no longer available from the original publishing agency site. 
**Title:****Wind power today [electronicresource]: Wind Energy Program highl**
 
1997 | 1998 | 1999 | 2000 | 2001 | 2002
 
SuDoc Number:E 1.38/5:
Item Number:0429-P-09 (online)
CGP systemNumber:000813725
 
February 10, 2020
No. 64833.

#### Kurt S. Adler, Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 59/21090 (New York).

Opinion by

Wilson, J.

The protest was dismissed.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TOMMY ROY KEETON,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-00697 GEB JFM P

vs.

SERGEANT CAROLL, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to

42 U.S.C. § 1983. On June 15, 2005, plaintiff filed a notice of change of address. That

document was not served on defendants. Plaintiff is advised that every document submitted to

the court for consideration must be served on defendants. Fed. R. Civ. P. 5. Plaintiff is required

to serve all documents in this action conventionally in accordance with the relevant provisions of

Fed. R. Civ. P. 5. See Local Rule 5-135(b). Since an attorney has filed a document with the

court on behalf of defendants, documents submitted by plaintiff must be served on that attorney

and not on the defendants. Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(b)(1). Conventional service is usually accomplished

by mailing a copy of the document to the attorney’s address of record. See Fed. R. Civ. P.

5(b)(2)(B). Plaintiff must include with every document filed in this action a certificate stating

/////

Case 2:04-cv-00697-ALA Document 43 Filed 07/22/05 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

2

the date an accurate copy of the document was mailed to defendants’ attorney and the address to

which it was mailed. See Local Rule 5-135(b) and (c).

On July 1, 2005, plaintiff filed a request for production of documents. Plaintiff is

informed that court permission is not necessary for discovery requests and that neither discovery

requests served on an opposing party nor that party's responses should be filed until such time as

a party becomes dissatisfied with a response and seeks relief from the court pursuant to the

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Discovery requests between the parties shall not be filed with

the court unless, and until, they are at issue. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: July 21, 2005.

12/kf

keet0697.o

Case 2:04-cv-00697-ALA Document 43 Filed 07/22/05 Page 2 of 2
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 223 (Tuesday, November 21, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 81074]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-25709]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 14851-003]


White Pine Waterpower, LLC; Notice of Revised Schedule for White 
Pine Pumped Storage Project

    This notice revises the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's 
(Commission) schedule for processing White Pine Waterpower, LLC's 
license application for the White Pine Pumped Storage Project. A prior 
notice issued on May 11, 2023, identified an anticipated schedule for 
issuance of draft and final National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) 
documents and a final order for the project. After the issuance of that 
notice, White Pine Waterpower, LLC indicated that it will be conducting 
a hydrogeologic study that provides data on local aquifer stratigraphy, 
groundwater elevation, and water quality needed to support the design 
of the project's water supply wellfield. White Pine Waterpower, LLC 
stated that it would file the study results by ``November 2024''. On 
October 26, 2023, Commission staff issued a letter requiring White Pine 
Waterpower, LLC to file the corresponding study results with the Bureau 
of Land Management before filing them with the Commission by January 
31, 2025. To account for the additional time needed for White Pine 
Waterpower, LLC to complete the studies and file the study results, the 
application will be processed according to the following revised 
schedule.

Notice of Ready for Environmental Analysis: April 14, 2025
Draft NEPA Document: January 9, 2026
Final NEPA Document: July 24, 2026

    In addition, in accordance with Title 41 of the Fixing America's 
Surface Transportation Act, enacted on December 4, 2015, agencies are 
to publish completion dates for all federal environmental reviews and 
authorizations. This notice identifies the Commission's anticipated 
schedule for issuance of the final order for the project, which is 
based on the revised issuance date for the final NEPA document. 
Accordingly, we currently anticipate issuing a final order for the 
project no later than:

Issuance of Final Order November 19, 2026

    If a schedule change becomes necessary, an additional notice will 
be provided so that interested parties and government agencies are kept 
informed of the project's progress.

    Dated: November 15, 2023.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-25709 Filed 11-20-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
# sec5

&L&"Arial"&10&BBulletin No. 2017-06	&"Arial,Bold"&10V SNC - &P	&R&"Arial"&10&BJune 2017
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

STEVEN ANTHONY GUZMAN,

Petitioner, No. CIV S- 04-0700 FCD GGH P

vs.

A. LAMARQUE, Warden,

Respondent. ORDER

 /

Petitioner, proceeding with appointed counsel, filed a petition pursuant to 28

U.S.C. §2254. By order filed on October 27, 2004, this action was stayed pending exhaustion of

petitioner’s newly identified claim of a due process violation in the imposition of sentence. 

Petitioner was directed to file a second amended petition containing all of his claims immediately

upon exhaustion of state court remedies. Petitioner has filed a second amended petition.

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that:

1. The stay imposed in this action is lifted; and

2. Respondent shall file a response to the second amended petition within thirty

days. See Rule 4, Fed. R. Governing § 2254 Cases. An answer shall be accompanied by all

transcripts and other documents relevant to the issues presented in the petition. See Rule 5, Fed.

R. Governing § 2254 Cases;

Case 2:04-cv-00700-FCD-GGH Document 15 Filed 12/22/05 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

2

3. If the response to the habeas petition is an answer, petitioner’s reply/traverse, if

any, shall be filed and served within thirty days after service of the answer; and

4. If the response to the habeas petition is a motion, petitioner’s opposition or

statement of non-opposition to the motion shall be filed and served within thirty days after

service of the motion, and respondents’ reply, if any, shall be filed and served within fifteen days

thereafter.

DATED: 12/21/05

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

 

 GREGORY G. HOLLOWS

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

GGH:009

guzm0700.lft

Case 2:04-cv-00700-FCD-GGH Document 15 Filed 12/22/05 Page 2 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KENNETH BROOKS,

Plaintiffs, No. CIV S-04-0480 MCE GGH PS

vs.

CITY OF VALLEJO, et al., 

Defendants. ORDER

 /

On September 12, 2005, the parties filed a joint stipulation that this action be

dismissed with prejudice. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that by virtue of the

stipulated dismissal, that this action is dismissed with prejudice pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.

41(a)(1). 

DATED: 10/26/05

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

____________________________________

 GREGORY G. HOLLOWS

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

GGH:mb

Brooks0480.dism

Case 2:04-cv-00480-MCE -GGH Document 74 Filed 10/27/05 Page 1 of 1
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Elizabeth A. Weaver

Maura D. Corrigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

May 25, 2010 

y0517 

Order 

 

May 25, 2010 

140088 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 140088 

 COA: 292345 

Wayne CC: 05-011365-FC 

DESMOND MARTIN SHAW, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the October 19, 2009 

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has 

failed to meet the burden of establishing entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D).
No. 52554.

protest 62059-K (New York).

#### Emil Gerstl *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel the court found that the facts herein agreed upon were such as to bring the case within the holding in *John Barr*v. *United, States*(11 Cust. Ct. 88, C. D. 801), which record was incorporated herein. (See *John Barr*v. *United States,*324 U. S. 83.) In accordance therewith it was held that the currency of the invoice should be converted at the buying rate in the New York market at noon on the day of exportation (the “free” rate of exchange for pounds sterling), as certified by the Federal Reserve bank and set forth by the collector on the entry. The protest- was sustained to this extent.
II 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1592 

To prohibit the Federal Government from requiring race or ethnicity to 

be disclosed in connection with the transfer of a firearm. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JULY 20, 2017 

Mr. BLUNT (for himself, Mr. COCHRAN, Mr. CORNYN, Mr. MANCHIN, Mr. 

ENZI, Mr. THUNE, Mr. STRANGE, and Mrs. CAPITO) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the 

Judiciary 

A BILL 

To prohibit the Federal Government from requiring race 

or ethnicity to be disclosed in connection with the transfer of a firearm. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Firearm Act of 2017’’. 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 1592 IS

1 SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT RE2 QUIRING RACE OR ETHNICITY TO BE DIS3 CLOSED IN CONNECTION WITH THE TRANS4 FER OF A FIREARM. 

5 The Federal Government may not require any person 

6 to disclose the race or ethnicity of the person in connection 

7 with the transfer of a firearm to the person. 

Æ 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with BILLS
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### National Science Foundation

In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, as amended), the National Science Foundation announces the following Astronomy and Astrophysics Advisory Committee (#13883) meeting: 

*Date and Time:*                         March 9, 2007 1:45—3:30 p.m. EST.                     

*Place:*                         Teleconference. National Science Foundation, Room 1045, Stafford I Building, 4121 Wilson Blvd., Arlington, VA, 22230.                     

*Type of Meeting:*                         Open.                     

*Contact Person:*                         Dr. G. Wayne Van Citters, Director, Division of Astronomical Sciences, Suite 1045, National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Blvd., Arlington, VA 22230. Telephone: 703-292-4908.                     

*Purpose of Meeting:*                         To provide advice and recommendations to the National Science Foundation (NSF), the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) on issues within the field of astronomy and astrophysics that are of mutual interest and concern to the agencies.                     

*Agenda:*                         To discuss the Committee's draft annual report due 15 March 2007.                     

Dated: February 16, 2007. 

Susanne E. Bolton, 

Committee Management Officer. 

[FR Doc. E7-3059 Filed 2-22-07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7555-01-P
_____________ No. 96-3136NE

_____________ Martin R. Stacy, * * Appellant, * * v. * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the United States of America; * District of Nebraska. Internal Revenue Service, * * [UNPUBLISHED] Appellees. *

_____________ Submitted: December 6, 1996 Filed: December 13, 1996

_____________ Before FAGG, WOLLMAN, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

_____________ PER CURIAM. Martin R. Stacy appeals the district court's order denying his Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) motion. Having carefully reviewed the record and the parties' briefs, we conclude the district court's judgment was clearly correct. Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. A true copy. Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
- Name: 
    - CaseNum: 
    - Address: 
    - Date: 
    - Summary: 
    - OArgue: Off
    - File: Off
    - Attorney: 
    - AttyAdd: 
    - CityStateZip: 
    - Opposition: 
    - DateFormat: (mm/dd/yyyy)
    - OppositionAdd: 
    - Internet: (Internet Version)
    - GoToText: Go to page
    - Page1: 
    - GoPrevious: 
    - Pg2: 2
    - Name2: 
    - Date2: 
    - Pg1: 1
    - Page2: 
    - GoNext:
**EXHIBIT 3.3**

 

**ARTICLES OF AMENDMENT**

**Relating to**

**CHANGE OF CORPORATE NAME**

**of**

**C2, INC.**

 

Pursuant to Section 180.1003 of the Wisconsin Business Corporation Law (the “WBCL”), I, William T. Donovan, President and Chief ExecutiveOfficer of C2, Inc., a Wisconsin corporation (the “Company”), **DO HEREBY CERTIFY THAT**: 

 

1. At a meeting of the Company’s Board of Directors (the “Board”) duly called and held on January 27, 2004, in accordancewith the provisions of Section 180.1003 of the WBCL, the Board adopted resolutions to amend ARTICLE 1 of the Company’s Amended and Restated Articles of Incorporation to change its corporate name to “Total Logistics, Inc.,” subject toshareholder approval. 

 

2. On April 20, 2004,in accordance with Sections 180.0701, 180.0725(3) and 180.1003 of the WBCL, the Company’s shareholders approved an amendment to ARTICLE 1 of the Company’s Amended and Restated Articles of Incorporation to change its corporate name to“Total Logistics, Inc.” 

 

3. Pursuantto said approval of the Board and the Company’s shareholders, ARTICLE 1 of the Company’s Restated Articles of Incorporation shall be amended to read in its entirety as follows: 

 

“ARTICLE 1 

 

NAME 

 

The name of the Corporation is Total Logistics, Inc.” 

 

4. In accordance with Section 180.0123 of the WBCL, these Articles of Amendment shall be effective on April 21, 2004 at 12:01 a.m.(Central Standard Time). 

 

**IN WITNESS WHEREOF**, I haveexecuted and subscribed these Articles of Amendment on behalf of the Company and do affirm the foregoing as true this 20th day of April, 2004.
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A19A2240. DERUSHA v. BURROUGHS et al.

On April 24, 2019, we granted David Derusha’s application for discretionary

appeal in this matter. A review of the complete record, however, shows that the

discretionary application was improvidently granted. Accordingly, we hereby

DISMISS this appeal.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

November 14, 2019

11/14/2019